explaining common ancestry

Please, everyone, follow the Forum Guidelines. There are no fools or idiots here at EvC Forum. If you find it too frustrating that your point isn't getting across, please don't post.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I provided the proof of this for you in Message 91, and reposted it in Message 110. Are you deliberately ignoring the evidence that runs contrary to your belief?

So please show me a cat that has turned into a dog without mating with a dog. If you can find any concrete evidence that one species turns into another species without breeding with that species, only then will I even think about taking your theory seriously.

ONCE AGAIN, this is not what evolution predicts. If anything, a cat turning into a dog (regardless of its mating behavior) would be evidence against evolution. Try going back and reading what has been posted. We are trying to explain how evolution actually works, and you appear to be stuck on the above misunderstanding.This message has been edited by Belfry, 12-24-2005 10:39 AM

Hi Carico,It might be faster to get through these issues with a real time dialogue. I'm going to wait in the chatroom for a while, why don't you join me there.--Percy

Carico, Don't talk gibberish. Evolution never said cats turn into dogs. Strawman fallacy. I gave three examples where a new species evolved & was unable to breed with the parent species. Yet each population was able to breed with it's own population. Perhaps your idea of what speciation is, is skewed.Speciation occurs via the bifurcation of a single lineages to the point where one population can no longer breed with another. ie speciation has occurred. We've seen it happen.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 12-24-2005 12:08 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Hello? And how do you know the origin of this species? Just a guess? How do you know this species wasn't a cross-breed or created that way? Another guess? Sorry, but guesses are not facts. They come from the imaginations of men. So again, please show me EVIDENCE that one species turns into another another species with whom they are INCAPABLE of breeding. Thank you.

I provided the proof of this for you in Message 91, and reposted it in Message 110 and Message 122. In the experiment I linked to only one single species was put into the experiment, yet there was more than one at the end.I really don't want to bring it up a fifth time, because then it would start to look like you were deliberately ignoring the evidence or something.

Carico, I have been asked by percy to intervene here. I suspect it is not necessary and that you do understand the evo position. But just to make sure, when evos speak of "apes" in the broader scientific sense, they refer to a large group of different species and includes humans within that species.I realize you are referring to human beings and other primates, and trying to get across a point about how evolution could or could not occur. I am not sure the discussion ever advanced far enough for the point to be made known, or if anyone was even trying to grasp your point before just dismissing it, but just to be clear, evos from their perspective would say humans can breed with apes since humans are apes.You are saying that they cannot, meaning they cannot breed with non-humans, and just to verify that for anyone reading. Stalin did try to breed humans and chimps and other primates, and his scientists were unsuccessful.

So how can you prove that one species gradually turns into another one if you claim it takes millions of years? So which is it? Does it take less time than that or does it take millions of years? If it's the former, then that contradicts other evolutionists who claim that it takes millions of years for one species to turn into another. If it's the latter, then how can you prove it?

So how can you prove that one species gradually turns into another one if you claim it takes millions of years? So which is it? Does it take less time than that or does it take millions of years? If it's the former, then that contradicts other evolutionists who claim that it takes millions of years for one species to turn into another. If it's the latter, then how can you watch it happen to prove it?

Thank you very much for helping out!It sounds like you might understand the point Carico is trying to make, and if that's true then clarifying it for us would also be very helpful. We can see that he is arguing that evolution cannot happen, but the reason he advances, namely that evolution cannot take place without interbreeding between species, makes no sense to anyone. If it makes sense to you then can you please express it in terms that make sense to others?--Percy

Carico, Speciation can occur in a single generation with polyploidy. Evolution does not claim speciation takes millions of years. Another strawman fallacy.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

You're replying to yourself so it's hard to tell who this is actually addressed to, but in case it was me... The pace of evolution varies. It depends upon the amount of time per generation, and upon the amount of environmental pressure. Creatures in a stable environment for which they're well suited will evolve little, such as the horseshoe crab and the coelacanth, which persisted with very little change for millions of years. Creatures in a changing environment with great environmental pressure can change rapidly, in mere thousands of years, unless the pressure is so great that they go extinct. And in the case of bacteria, where many generations can occur in a single day, it can take as little as a week to breed a new species.So you see, there is no one time frame for evolution of a new species to occur. Some speciation is rapid, some slow, some glacial.--Percy